Host selection in insects: reproductive interference shapes behavior of ovipositing females

Abstract

In nature, closely related species often utilize different host species, but it is still unclear what factors contribute to the evolution and maintenance of such diversified host selection. In this review, I describe how negative interspecific mating interactions (reproductive interference) can shape host selection by animals, focusing mainly on phytophagous and predatory insects. First, I explain an important premise of this hypothesis, which is that the adult reproductive site is the same as the feeding site for the offspring. Next, I describe several mathematical models and well-studied empirical systems to show that reproductive interference can sufficiently drive and maintain different host selection between phylogenetically related species. Then, I argue for the first time that reproductive interference can cause an oviposition preference in insects that is not optimal for the survival and development of the offspring, as a result of maternal adaptive behavior that maximizes the mother's own fitness. Furthermore, I argue that in insects, reproductive interference probably shapes oviposition behavior before the female alights on the host (e.g., habitat preference), without affecting post-alighting decision making. I would like to emphasize that these two arguments represent the novel approach to clarify the unrevealed pattern of complex insect oviposition behavior.

Reproductive interference: ecological and evolutionary consequences of interspecific promiscuity

“…If a trait involved in mate recognition also affects resource use, reproductive interference may result in apparent ecological character displacement (Konuma and Chiba 2007). In other cases, habitat partitioning or host specialization may evolve to prevent interspecific encounters (e.g., Colwell 1986;Nishida et al 2015;Noriyuki 2015). Potential consequences of reproductive interference, including ones not mentioned in the text, are listed in Table 1.…”

“…He suggests that the occurrence of reproductive interference can explain some of the inconsistent results reported by those studies, and he also points out some underappreciated studies that identify reproductive interference in the insect systems. Noriyuki (2015) reviews both empirical and theoretical studies and examines the potential role of reproductive interference in shaping species-specific host use in insects. He suggests that when the host plant furnishes not only The literature citations are for reference only and are not exhaustive The superscript in parentheses after each citation indicates the type of the study: E empirical, T theoretical and V verbal model.…”

Host specialization by reproductive interference between closely related herbivorous insects

“…When mating takes place on or near the host plant, the plant serves not only as food for the offspring but also as a mating site (e.g., Feder et al 1994). Therefore, reproductive interference may drive host partitioning among closely related species, creating spatial segregation of mating sites (Colwell 1986;Kuno 1992;Noriyuki et al 2012;Friberg et al 2013;Kishi and Tsubaki 2014;Noriyuki 2015). However, whereas some empirical studies have suggested the causal role of reproductive interference in the evolution and/or maintenance of host-plant partitioning as well as microhabitat partitioning, there is a need for modeling studies to address whether reproductive interference can indeed drive the evolution of host-plant partitioning.…”

Female fecundity variation affects reproducibility of experiments on host plant preference and acceptance in a phytophagous insect

“…If such effects are found, the importance of host utilization as a driver of evolutionary specialization decreases. In nature, female habitat selection can precede host plant choice [26,27], so that the ultimate female host choice is relevant only within a particular habitat. Likewise, the prior experience [28,29], fecundity and egg load [30 -35] of individual females may all affect the female-host interactions.…”